Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which Card @ 1920x1080?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 13, 2009 2:25:13 AM

XFX GTX 260 Black Edition $200:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Gigabyte Radeon HD 4890 $230:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...



I'm leaning towards the NVIDIA because it is cheaper, comes with more games, has bigger processing power, and I simply like them more.
However, the memory bandwidth is almost equal between them, the 4890 has a bigger memory SIZE, and is overclockable much farther than the GTX 260 because that GTX 260 is already super-clocked.

PLEASE, no ATI fanboy-ism here, be honest.

2 P.S.s, what does XFX mean by Black-Edition? As in an unlocked CPU Multiplier or something? Also, I was originally going with this, but it's been deactivated.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

More about : card 1920x1080

April 13, 2009 3:09:41 AM

ATI is the better video card out of the 2, you go with a NVIDIA card you would have to go with the GTX 275, which = to the ATI HD 4890. The 4890 used DDRG5 which is the better memory then the DDRG3 that GTX 260 uses, which the DDR5 has a very big bandwidth build in the memory. They have the overclock for the HD 4890 cards, if you are what to overclock, go with the overclock one.
April 13, 2009 3:15:35 AM

jawallace-45 said:
ATI is the better video card out of the 2, you go with a NVIDIA card you would have to go with the GTX 275, which = to the ATI HD 4890. The 4890 used DDRG5 which is the better memory then the DDRG3 that GTX 260 uses, which the DDR5 has a very big bandwidth build in the memory. They have the overclock for the HD 4890 cards, if you are what to overclock, go with the overclock one.


Also don't forget that the bandwidth is really almost the same, as the GXT 260 has a 448-bit bandwidth, and the 4890 has a 256-bit bandwidth.

Please also remember the cost.

And I'm not sure if I want to OC or not, depends on 1) How far I can go 2) How stable it is 3) How much of a difference it actually makes, and 4) The quality of the software that allows me to do the OCing, as I don't think my MOBO BIOS has the capabilities.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

P.S., don't recommend a GTX 275, as that is simply not in my budget @ $260
Related resources
April 13, 2009 3:21:37 AM

Get the Nvidia card, for gaming its better.
April 13, 2009 3:59:57 AM

^^why do you say that when the 4890 walks all over the 260
April 13, 2009 4:08:48 AM

Axeon said:
Get the Nvidia card, for gaming its better.



Can someone please explain the flaws in this statement, I refuse from this point forward to acknowledge this idiot. The 4890 is better so if you want to go longer without buying a new video card go with that. If you don't mind upgrading sooner, go with the cheaper card.
April 13, 2009 4:14:34 AM

raybob95 said:
Also don't forget that the bandwidth is really almost the same, as the GXT 260 has a 448-bit bandwidth, and the 4890 has a 256-bit bandwidth.

Please also remember the cost.

And I'm not sure if I want to OC or not, depends on 1) How far I can go 2) How stable it is 3) How much of a difference it actually makes, and 4) The quality of the software that allows me to do the OCing, as I don't think my MOBO BIOS has the capabilities.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

P.S., don't recommend a GTX 275, as that is simply not in my budget @ $260



If you are concerned about the overclocking software don't be, you should use rivatuner for either card instead.
April 13, 2009 4:41:18 AM

just get a 4870 1gb around $180 it trades blows with 260 and wins most games just google
4870 1gb reviews. the gains with 4890 arn't substantial enough to qualify the extra bucks again just google 4890 reviews
April 13, 2009 4:41:34 AM

The 4890 is the better performer of the ones you chose. Like others have said to get a nvidia to match the 4870 you would have to go with a gtx 275:however, the 4890 is able to oc higher. To beat the 4890 you would have to get a gtx 285 which is quite a bit more expensive. If you are just wanting to go with one card I would recommend the 4890 for the budget p/p.
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2009 5:02:04 AM

The 4890 is on par with the GTX275, and they're both almost on par with the GTX280.

The GTX280 retails for $350+

If you can't get a GTX260 for less than $200, just get the 4890 because it's so much better.
April 13, 2009 5:34:45 AM

The 4890 has the higher performance of the two. Both Anandtech and Toms did a solid review of the 4890 in comparison to cards that have been around for a while. Personally, I think the increased performance of the 4890 is worth the extra $30 over the gtx 260 216. However, if you really wanted to play the bundled games with the 260, then get that.

I know this wasn't on your original list, but you might be interested in something like this card for $160. It doesn't come with anything bundled, but if you weren't interested in the extras, then it won't matter. The 4890 is $70 more expensive than this card, which makes it harder to recommend over the nvidia option.

P.S. "Black Edition" is just what XFX calls the card. BE basically just means cards that have been factory overclocked by a large amount. EVGA calls these cards "superclocked". It's all just a marketing thing.
April 13, 2009 2:47:46 PM

P.S., if I had the money, I'd probably get this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

But as far as I know, I don't. Even the $230 4890 is pushing it. I'm not all too concerned with the GTX 260 Core 216 Games, either. If it came with FSX and GTZIV, I'd buy it in a heart beat. Nor am I concerned at all with a 4 Gig Flash Drive.
Also, that $200 GTX 260 Core 216 outperforms a 4870, and $200 fits in my budget, so the 4870 is out of the question.

I'm thinking that I should just wait for GTX 275 prices to hopefully go down, or aquire MIRs, because with 240 Cores, it would destroy the GTX 260 Core 216 in performance. It also destroys the 4870X2 and 4890 at GTAIV, which I intend to play as my main game.

Flashback: I must be getting either a larger budget or more greedy without noticing it, because my original build included a 9800GT. :D 
April 13, 2009 3:50:17 PM

Well, since no one else asked, what mobo/cpu are you running? Is it nvidia or intel chipset?

simple facts to keep in mind:
1) HD4870 1gb is = to the GTX260 core 216. Look at any comparisons. Tested accross 10 games you will see a total difference of 10 fps.
2) HD4890 is = GTX275 same results between these two as there are between the hd4870/gtx260.
2.5) HD4890/GTX275 out perform the GTX280 in testing. I'll find the test if I have to but you should be able to find it. They are both within 8% of the GTX285.
3) if you have an nvidia chipset then I would get the nvidia card, if you have an intel chipset then I would recommend the ATI. If you have an x58 get whatever you are most comfortable with.
4) WARNING, extremely vague concept follows. Rumor (unsubstantiated by anyone)has it that the prices will drop within the next week or two. Probably not more then 10% but that would drop the GTX275 into your price range.

My personal experience between the two is that if I get an nvidia card I plug it in and go. Every ATI card I have had (I have had 3) has required some additional work and the drivers are almost always buggy. + I was never able to get crossfire to work. Bang for the buck would = ATI, simple system performance and reliability would = nvidia.
April 13, 2009 5:03:58 PM

mexpedip said:
Well, since no one else asked, what mobo/cpu are you running? Is it nvidia or intel chipset?

simple facts to keep in mind:
1) HD4870 1gb is = to the GTX260 core 216. Look at any comparisons. Tested accross 10 games you will see a total difference of 10 fps.
2) HD4890 is = GTX275 same results between these two as there are between the hd4870/gtx260.
2.5) HD4890/GTX275 out perform the GTX280 in testing. I'll find the test if I have to but you should be able to find it. They are both within 8% of the GTX285.
3) if you have an nvidia chipset then I would get the nvidia card, if you have an intel chipset then I would recommend the ATI. If you have an x58 get whatever you are most comfortable with.
4) WARNING, extremely vague concept follows. Rumor (unsubstantiated by anyone)has it that the prices will drop within the next week or two. Probably not more then 10% but that would drop the GTX275 into your price range.

My personal experience between the two is that if I get an nvidia card I plug it in and go. Every ATI card I have had (I have had 3) has required some additional work and the drivers are almost always buggy. + I was never able to get crossfire to work. Bang for the buck would = ATI, simple system performance and reliability would = nvidia.



If the GTX 275 price drops, whether actually dropping, aquiring an MIR, or both, I will probably get that. I am using an Intel P45 chipset. I do not intend on Crossfire or SLI. 2x the cost does not warrant a 30% at best performance increase.

Oh, and in GTAIV (My main game) the GTX 275 was shown to significantly CRUSH the 4890.

Mobo= Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P (Intel P45/ ICH10R)
CPU= Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
April 13, 2009 6:02:43 PM

One benchmark that I recall, showed that the GTX 275 had a much higher minimum frame rate. Wish all benchmarks would do the same because clearly this is more important than maximum fps.
April 13, 2009 6:14:15 PM

Axeon said:
Get the Nvidia card, for gaming its better.



L TO THE O TO THE L.

look up benchmarks son, the 4890 walks all over the 260.
April 14, 2009 12:16:28 AM

Most people around here do not realize that, like being tricked into buying a slow Velociraptor because of the great benches, Benchmarks are not everything, and cannot tell you everything. Until you see how things perform with your EXACT HARDWARE, in the real-world, you really only have a very vague idea of how something will perform.
a b U Graphics card
April 14, 2009 12:18:26 AM

It's like people who still buy 8800Ultras because it's more expensive than the GTX260 and they think the more expensive the better
April 14, 2009 6:27:41 AM

The 260 is horrible compared to the 4890. 275 beats out the 4890 on the bench's I've seen so far.
April 14, 2009 1:20:43 PM

I hate to break it to most of you but you will not SEE a difference in performance between the 4870/gtx260 and the 4890/gtx275. The only exception being Crysis @ 1900x1200 or higher.

The human eye cannot detect anything over 60 fps and anything over 40 fps will appear to be smooth or completely smooth. With that said, I would still hold out for the gtx275 (I have an x48 chipset) because the benchmarks are very close to the gtx285 and I prefer an easy install usage experience with my gpu.

The other deciding factor to me has been that (this is my opinion based on my experience) ATI releases new drivers to fix bugs. Nvidias driver updates do that and seem to increase performance.
April 14, 2009 3:30:38 PM

Most of you are forgetting that, (even though I've decided on this once the price goes down and/or I get an MIR http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...) despite the 4890 generally beating that OC'd GTX 260 Core 216, there is a $30 price difference, and the GTX also came with 2 expensive games.

Just felt that I should point that out and that most people on this site find it hard to take price into account.
April 14, 2009 10:37:20 PM

mexpedip said:
I hate to break it to most of you but you will not SEE a difference in performance between the 4870/gtx260 and the 4890/gtx275. The only exception being Crysis @ 1900x1200 or higher.

The human eye cannot detect anything over 60 fps and anything over 40 fps will appear to be smooth or completely smooth.



This is not quite true.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.ht...

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

To pull an excerpt from the first page...

"How many frames per second can the human eye see? This is a tricky question. And much confusion about it is related to the fact that this question is NOT the same as how many frames per second do I have to have to make motions look fluid?"

You are answering the second question, not the first. You're right in that 60 fps is the point where most people can't really tell a difference and that 40 is the point where most people stop feeling that their framerate is too low. But it's not due to a physical limitation of our eyes =)
a b U Graphics card
April 14, 2009 10:57:26 PM

Alex00322 said:
The 260 is horrible compared to the 4890. 275 beats out the 4890 on the bench's I've seen so far.


Yeh, because the GTX260 is meant to go up against the 4870, not the 4890
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 14, 2009 11:27:56 PM

err you can't compare the 4870 vs 4890... you overclock the 4870, you might get a stock 4890 (probably won't anyways), but if you overclock the 4890, then you own the oc'd 4870.
a b U Graphics card
April 15, 2009 12:19:30 AM

Well i no the 4890 is faster but not much faster. Plus the 4870 cost a whole lot less!
=]
April 15, 2009 1:11:04 AM

invisik said:
I would go with this card.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
overclocked version so i would imagine putting up a fight against the 4890.


That's a solid card, but for 1920x1080 the 1 GB would probably be best. Turning on AA/AF and using high quality textures can get you really close to maxing out all 512 MB, and it's only going to get worse as games advance. Of course, if the OP doesn't really use those, then that card's a fantastic choice.
a b U Graphics card
April 15, 2009 2:13:13 AM

Yes i would agree if you play intensive new games with all the eye candy at high resolution then get the 1gig card.
April 15, 2009 4:37:26 AM

it all depends on what ur planning to do with the card that u buy.

the hd4890 kills the 260 in all the benchmarks anyways, but the diff is slight even if it is like 10% ur not going to notice the difference
April 15, 2009 1:33:05 PM

I have found some additional reviews of the GTX275/HD4890 and each one seems to show a bigger gap between the two cards with the GTX275 winning most benchmark results. If you are part of folding@home then the gap is tremendously in favor of the nividia cards.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Inno3D/GeForce_GTX_2...
April 15, 2009 3:58:20 PM

I am truly sorry everyone my sincere apologies, i thought he was talking about that 4870 lol. If it is the 4890 then that 260 has no match against it. LOL, me "Get the Nvidia card, for gaming its better" = MAJOR FAIL!!!!! LOL
April 15, 2009 4:00:44 PM

macabre215 said:
Can someone please explain the flaws in this statement, I refuse from this point forward to acknowledge this idiot. The 4890 is better so if you want to go longer without buying a new video card go with that. If you don't mind upgrading sooner, go with the cheaper card.


What a DICK!! ;) 
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 15, 2009 4:35:13 PM

Agreed dude, what a douchebag. :pt1cable: 
April 15, 2009 5:17:07 PM

The basic question is "what's better for 1920x1080". Well, in my honest opionion (no fanboyism here) I'd recommend the Ati 4890, not only for it's increased performance, but also for it's amount of ram. It's only a little more then 100 MB over Nvidia's 260, but that might make the difference in more demanding games, like for example GTA IV.

And indeed, IF the price on the 275 drops, lets say below $250, then it's hard not to recommend that, seeing as quite a bit better then the 4890.
April 15, 2009 9:16:14 PM

That's true the 4890 is better for that res. Unless of course you were going higher like the GTX275 or 285.
April 15, 2009 11:02:00 PM

the 285 would be way over raybo's budget, I guess, so the only thing I still have to say is: go for the 4890, and IF the GTX275 drops in price, consider that as well, they're mostly on par really.
!